78 Seek The Old Paths – October2018 DANGERS OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS #4

(ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION) Randy Kea

n my study of the ESV, I have cate when a word was not represented away doth commit adultery.” Lascivi- learned it is a “light revision” of in the original text but was demanded ousness is a type of sexual immorality Ithe notorious Revised Standard by syntax, grammatical structure, etc. but it is not . In other Version. By putt ing them side by side, The ESV has no use of italics like this words, all fornication is sexual im- one can see the great similarity be- whatsoever. morality, but not all sexual immorality tween the two. In fact, in most places (4) Here are a few of some other is fornication. there is no difference at all. I believe serious issues with the ESV: e) By cross examining Matthew this point is generally unknown a) In :53-8:11 and Mark 5:17 and Ephesians 2:15, the ESV has among many in the Lord’s church who 16:9-20, brackets are used and foot- Jesus and Paul contradicting each have “latched on” to this modern notes that cast serious doubt on the other with reference to the “abolish- translation. We note here, to their integrity of these whole sections of the ing” of the Mosaical credit, they did change “young Word of God. Law. The ESV says: “Do not think that woman” to “virgin” in :14. b) “Only begotten” is deleted from I have come to abolish the Law or the As we have emphasized in previ- these precious passages: John 1:14,18; Prophets; I have not come to abolish ous articles, there are two dangerous 3:16-18; 4:9. The original word for only them but to fulfill them.” The KJV issues in connection with modern begotten is monogenes. The unparal- says: “Think not that I am come to de- translations generally: (1) Modern leled linguists of the KJV rendered stroy the law, or the prophets: I am translations, as a rule, do not use the this word as “only begotten.” The ASV not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Now, text-base used by the KJV. (The KJV (American Standard Version), the consider also Ephesians 2:15: ESV: “by uses the Received Text for the New NASV (New American Standard Ver- abolishing the law of commandments Testament and the Masoretic Hebrew sion), and the NKJV (New King expressed in ordinances...” KJV: “Hav- text for the Old Testament.) (2) Mod- James Version) all retain the words ing abolished in his flesh the enmity, ern translations that have attained “only begotten” as the correct trans- even the law of commandments...” The any notoriety use for their translation lation of this word. The ESV along ESV has Jesus contradicting Paul in technique a “dynamic equivalency” with the RSV (Revised Standard Ver- these passages (Matt. 5:17; Eph. 2:15) technique instead of a “verbal and for- sion), TEV (Today’s English Version), on the termination of the Mosaical mal” technique. See my previous arti- and the NIV (New International Ver- system at the cross. One of the reasons cles for a full discussion of this: seek- sion) have abandoned “only begotten” Jesus came into the world was to theoldpaths.com/pdf/HowWeGotTheBi as the correct translation. To remove “abolish” the Law of Moses. He did ble.pdf “only begotten” from these passages not come to “destroy” it, we still have Although in the preface of the is an attack on the virgin birth and it. We learn from it (Rom. 15:4). But ESV the claim is made that the ESV deity of Christ. One of the best brief Jesus did “abolish” it. He took it out is in harmony with the “Tyndale-King summaries of the cumulative evidence of the way “nailing it to his cross” (Col. James legacy,” upon close examina - through the centuries concerning the 2:14). tion this is a claim that cannot be sub- truth of this matter that I’ve run Other errors could be noted but stantiated. across is found in a lecture by brother these are enough to demonstrate that (1) The (Received Robert Taylor entitled “Jesus, The the ESV is not trustworthy. Text) was used as the textual basis Only Begotten Son” (Sixth Annual We conclude by saying the ESV for translation in the Firm Foundation Lectureship on has the wrong text base in both tes- by the KJV. The text base of the ESV John, 1989, pp 81-91). taments and translation issues with in the New Testament was the mod- c) Clearly, changing “regenera- doctrinal consequences. We continue ern UBS 4th edition/Nestle-Aland tion” to “in the new world” has a pre- to urge all to stay with the accurate 27th edition Greek Text (this is a millenial slant in Matthew 19:28. The and reliable KJV. faulty text base). word “” is also found in 1503 N. 30th Ave (2) The Hebrew Titus 3:5 where it refers to the period Humboldt, TN 38343 was used by the KJV for Old Testa- of the new birth which is the New Tes- ment translation. The ESV used the tament or Gospel period under which Dead Sea Scrolls, the , the we now live. A review of the ESV by Robert R. Tay- Samaritan Pentateuch...and other d) Matthew 19:9. Changing the lor, Jr. is available at: “seektheold- sources for Old Testament translation specific word “fornication” to “sexual paths.com/pdf/ESV-Taylor.pdf” How We Got the (Jan-June purposes. (See the preface of the ESV). immorality” which is generic and too 2018) by Randy Kea is available at: “seek- They used these spurious sources to inclusive and also leaving out the last theoldpaths.com/pdf/HowWeGotThe- modify the Hebrew text which under- phrase of Matthew 19:9 has far-reach- Bible.pdf” lies the KJV. ing implications. The last phrase says, November’s review of modern ver- (3) The KJV used italics to indi- “and whoso marrieth her which is put sions will be: “New .”